Supreme Court, Queens County, December 18, 2017

Collins Gann McCloskey & Barry PLLC, New York City (Philip Nash of counsel), for defendant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney (Johnnette Traill of counsel), for plaintiff.

Pursuant to CPL 160.59, which became effective October 2017, the defendant, N.N., moves for sealing of his 2006 misdemeanor conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01). In support of his motion for sealing, the defendant asserts that he has not been convicted of any other offenses and is eligible for sealing under the statute. In addition, the defendant asserts that since his conviction in 2006, he has lived a law-abiding productive life where he has managed his wife's medical practice, developed a residential real estate company with his grandfather in Michigan, served on municipal boards, and received his general contracting license in Michigan, as well as a certification in land policy (aff of defendant at 2-3). He has also obtained a Master's degree in urban planning, and real estate licenses in Ohio and Vermont (id.). Further, while conceding that his criminal conviction did not prevent him from becoming licensed in his chosen profession, or even completing graduate school, he says he is embarrassed by his criminal record and is concerned that he will be at a disadvantage in seeking future employment (id.).

Conditionally, the People do not oppose the defendant's application, stating that they believe the defendant to be eligible as their records indicate that he has not had any subsequent convictions and is otherwise qualified under the statute. As a result, there is no need to hold a hearing in deciding the instant motion (CPL 160.59).

Pursuant to CPL 160.59, an individual is eligible for sealing of an offense if: (1) the defendant has been convicted of an "eligible offense," as defined in CPL 160.59 (1) (a); (2) the defendant has not previously obtained sealing of a maximum number of convictions under either CPL 160.58 or 160.59 (CPL 160.59 [3] [b], [c]); (3) at least 10 years have passed since the imposition of sentence, with time tolled for periods of incarceration (CPL 160.59 [3] [d]; [5]); (4) the defendant has no undisposed arrests or charges pending (CPL 160.59 [3] [e]);{**58 Misc 3d at 612} (5) the defendant has not been convicted of any crime after the date of the entry of judgment of the conviction for which sealing is sought (CPL 160.59 [3] [f]); and (6) the defendant has not been convicted of two or more felonies or more than two crimes (CPL 160.59 [3] [h]). CPL 160.59 (7) gives courts discretion to consider the specific facts and circumstances surrounding an individual's personal history and conviction in determining whether sealing is appropriate.

In the instant case, it is clear that N.N. meets each of the enumerated criteria for sealing, and is an example of the type of person the legislature intended to help in enacting the sealing statute. The defendant's 2006 conviction stands as an aberration to an otherwise exemplary law-abiding life. He has no additional arrests, and this conviction stands as his only arrest. He has also achieved significant academic and professional accomplishments.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to seal his conviction pursuant to CPL 160.59 is granted.